Defensive offer, or have house prices become so expensive?

no, not out! You held out against it for so long. What a pity!

It would really be nice if you stopped spamming OT all the time.

no words...
[und noch fünf mal nichts]

Yes, that's how we know you West Germans.

... to defame me in this way.

Exactly my humor. :D

Anyway – how did we actually get from "have house prices become so expensive or are they trying to deter us" via "I inherited a seven-figure property and feel sorry for myself" to Wessi-shaming? I must have lost the thread somewhere in between.

I think we already understood your basic statement about the unchanged exemption amounts. It just seems that most others here do not share the view that these exemption amounts should have risen along with property prices. Because honestly, there is no connection there. That’s like demanding from the tax office that my exemption amounts should increase before I have to pay taxes, on the grounds that I now earn more. That’s absurd. If the property is worth so much, then yes, you have to mortgage it. Raising the exemption amounts so that rich people can become comfortably richer would only make the gap between rich and poor widen even faster than it already does.

I have the thought that the property will no longer be sold privately, because the city/university is waiting to build new university buildings or apartments there. There simply won't be any single-family houses on Alexanderplatz as the city grows.

Why are there people who are so stubborn and resistant to advice? 95% here in the forum have already stated that you have a "quirky" point of view. And yet so blinded. Oh dear.

Edit: Oh - now you have deleted your post again - or was there finally a moderator here :)

A note on promoting marriage and family:

The judiciary urgently needs clearly defined marital status, otherwise the algorithm-like mechanism of the laws cannot function. Therefore, a marital status must be defined in order to make a family legally manageable. Only responsible persons above a certain age can agree on this together. Hence marriage.

Anyone who has worked once with - let’s call them "difficult" - families is almost immediately against more child benefits, but instead for higher child tax allowances. However, these only really help with sufficient taxable income…

What I don’t understand is choosing not to marry due to the cost argument of expensive divorce, but still to have children together.

You can hardly say (although it was said here) that financial support bypasses those who signed a certificate such as homosexuals or childless people, which one does not want to sign for their own financial security.

Also another thought: If the status of marriage is supposed to have value, divorce must not be cheap. That’s just how it is. Otherwise, serial multiple marriages become a mass product life model – does anyone want that?

Also another thought: If the status of marriage is supposed to have value, divorce must not be made cheap. That's just how it is. Otherwise, multiple consecutive marriages become a mass-produced life model - does anyone want that?

Why not? If you don't see marriage as something willed by God, then it is a civil law contractual form. And as with all fees - it only hits low incomes hard.